RJDA TORTS AND DAMAGES 2ND SEMESTER 2019-2020

Such fault or negligence, if there is no pre-existing

TORTS AND QUASI-DELICT contractual relation between the parties, is called
An act or omission causing damage to another, no quasi-delict and is governed by the provisions of this
pre-existing contractual relation of which the said act Chapter.”
or omission may be said to be natural outgrowth or
incident (Robles v. Castillo, 61 OG 1220). In recent cases, an action based on quasi-delict can be
A violation of a duty imposed by general law or maintained even if there is an existing contractual
otherwise upon all persons occupying the relation to relation between the parties.
each other which is involved in a given transaction.
There should always be a violation of some duty that Delict
must arise by operation of law and not by mere
agreement of the parties. Governed by the Revised Penal Code particularly on
Imprudence and Negligence.
Note: Torts and Quasi-delict, although similar in Elements:
nature, are different concepts. ❖ Offender does or fails to do an act;
❖ The doing or failure to do that act is voluntary;
TORTS QUASI-DELICT ❖ It was done without malice
As to its source A common law Based on the
concept Civil Code ❖ Material damage results from the reckless
imprudence
As to its It applies to Covers only
applicability any subject those that are ❖ There is inexcusable lack of precaution on the part
fixed by law of the offender, taking into consideration his
employment or occupation, degree of intelligence,
physical condition and other circumstances
regarding persons, time, and place.
ELEMENTS OF TORT: Contractual negligence
❖ There must be damage or injury actually caused; It is governed by the law on Obligations and contracts
❖ Existence of negligence or fault; under the Civil Code.
It is demandable when there is negligence in the
❖ No contractual relations; and performance of every kind of obligation, however,
the liability may be regulated by courts according to
❖ Causal relation between the damage and act or the circumstances.
omission.

MAIN FUNCTIONS OF PUNISHING TORT SIGNIFICANCE OF KNOWING THE KIND OF

1. Compensation and restitution
2. Prevention of future losses and harm NEGLIGENCE
3. Loss Distribution The negligence must be distinguished accordingly in
order to determine the proper venue for filing and
what action must be filed.
NEGLIGENCE
This involves voluntary acts or omissions which result Concurrence of causes of action: The quasi-delict and
to injury to others without intending to cause the criminal negligence case can proceed independently
same. in determining the liability of the actor, because the
The actor fails to exercise due care in performing two cases do not have the same elements.
such acts or omissions. When a contractual obligation can be
It depends on the circumstances, place, persons, and breached by tort, the single act or omission may give
time. rise to two or more causes of action separate and
There is a strict liability in tort where the person is distinct from the other.
made liable independent of fault or negligence upon
submission of proof of certain facts. In cases of an accident where one of the common
carriers involved insured its passengers, the
passengers can go after the insurance companies
THREE KINDS OF NEGLIGENCE based on the insurance contract (culpa-contractual).
❖ Quasi-delict
❖ Criminal Negligence
❖ Contractual Negligence Article 2176, whenever it refers to "fault or negligence",
covers not only acts "not punishable by law" but also
QUANTUM OF PROOF ON NEGLIGENCE acts criminal in character, whether intentional and
Preponderance of evidence voluntary or negligent.
Quasi-delict
It is governed by the Civil Code, particularly Article Consequently, a separate civil action lies against the
2176, which provides: offender in a criminal act, whether or not he is
“Whoever by act or omission causes criminally prosecuted and found guilty or acquitted,
damage to another, there being fault or
negligence, is obliged to pay for the damage done. provided that the offended party is not allowed, (if the

1 of 17
RJDA TORTS AND DAMAGES 2ND SEMESTER 2019-2020

tortfeasor is actually charged also criminally), to
recover damages on both scores, and would be entitled
in such eventuality only to the bigger award of the two,
assuming the awards made in the two cases vary.
— The same negligence causing damages may produce
civil liability arising from a crime under the Penal Code,
or create an action for quasi-delicts or culpa extra-
contractual under the Civil Code. Therefore, the
DISTINCTIONS ON THE SOURCES OF OBLIGATIONS
Contract
acquittal or conviction in the criminal case is entirely
irrelevant in the civil case, unless, of course, in the
event of an acquittal where the court has declared that
the fact from which the civil action arose did not exist,
in which case the extinction of the criminal liability
would carry with it the extinction of the civil liability.
(Andamo v. IAC, 191 SCRA 203)
Quasi-Delict Delict

As to its juridical tie Contract itself Act or omission that caused Act or omission intentionally
the damage done

As to the quantum of proof Preponderance of evidence Preponderance of evidence Proof beyond reasonable
doubt

As to the defenses available Existence of force majeure Exercise of diligence of a Lack of intent; Those
or the exercise of due good father of the family circumstances that justify or
diligence mitigate liability provided
under the law

As to pre-existing contract There must be No pre-existing contract No pre-existing contract

As to the burden of proof Burden of proof lies on the The victim must prove there The prosecution has the
existence of a breach of is negligence of the actor burden of proving that a
contract and such has a causal crime has been committed
connection on the injury

to the extent of the insurance policy and those

The victims of a quasi-delict may proceed against the required by law (GSIS v. CA)
insurance of the vehicle owner — the injured or the
heirs of a deceased victim of a vehicular accident may
sue directly the insurer of the vehicle. However,
although the victim may proceed directly against the
insurer for indemnity, the third party liability is only up

2 of 17
RJDA TORTS AND DAMAGES
NEGLIGENCE IN QUASI-DELICT
It is the omission to do something which a reasonable
man, guided by those considerations which ordinarily
regulate the conduct of human affairs, would do, or
the doing of something which a prudent and
reasonable man would not do.
TEST OF NEGLIGENCE
✓ Negligence is a conduct- Whether the person who
is sought to be liable did or did not do something
which a reasonable man would not do
✓ Unreasonable or undue risks- Whether the
defendant used reasonable care and caution in
which an ordinarily prudent person would have
used.
Unreasonable risk is the risk in negligence is
a danger which is apparent or should be apparent to
one in the position of the actor.
✓ Forseeability- Whether a prudent man in such case
could foresee harm as a result of the course actually
pursued
However, the courts should look more on
the possibility of the hazard of some form than the
particular chance that happened. Thus, even if a
particular injury was not foreseeable, the risk is still
foreseeable if the possibility of injury is foreseeable.
It is the existence of some real likelihood of
some damage and the likelihood is such of
appreciable weight and moment to induce or which
should reasonably induce action to avoid it on the
part of a person of a reasonably prudent mind.
✓ Probability- Whether a prudent man in the position
of the defendant would have foreseen that the
effect harmful to another was sufficiently probable
to warrant his conduct or guarding against its
consequence.
The person will be liable if, despite the great
probability that damage will occur, he failed to
exercise due diligence in the face of such great
probability.
Degree of care required is proportional to
the danger a person or property attendant he
pursues or instrumentality he uses.
However, foreseeability and probability are
different because despite the lesser degree of
damage, the damage may still be considered
foreseeable.
If there is probability of harm sufficiently
serious that ordinary men would take precautions to
avoid it, then failure to do so is negligence.
CIRCUMSTANCES TO CONSIDER IN
DETERMINING NEGLIGENCE
✓ Time
✓ Place
✓ Emergency
✓ Gravity of Harm to be Avoided
✓ Alternative Course of Action
✓ Social Value or Utility of Activity
✓ Personal circumstances of the person exposed to
the risk
3 of 17
2ND SEMESTER 2019-2020
TIME
Time of the day may affect the diligence required of
the actor.
Example: Running in the dark requires a different
degree of diligence than running in the light of the
day.
PLACE
The place of incident is also material.
Example: Travelling in a slippery road requires a
higher degree of diligence than driving on a dry road.
EMERGENCY
Emergency Rule- an individual who suddenly finds
himself in a situation of danger and is required to act
without much time to consider the best means that
may be adopted to avoid the impending danger is not
guilty of negligence if he fails to undertake what
subsequently and upon reflection may appear to be a
better solution, unless the emergency was brought
by his own negligence.
It is a total defense on the part of the defendant. In
relation with this, the person who had the Last Clear
Chance to evade the possible damage or injury shall
be held liable as compared to the person who used
the emergency rule.
However, the courts shall still consider the over-all
nature of the circumstances in applying the
emergency rule for the conduct is not exclusively
dictated by the suddenness of the event which
absolutely negates thoughtful care.
GRAVITY OF HARM TO BE AVOIDED
The harm may still be considered as foreseeable even
if the odds that an injury will result is not high, if the
gravity of harm to be avoided is great.
ALTERNATIVE COURSE OF ACTION
The result may still be considered as unforeseeable to
a reasonable man if the alternative presented to the
actor is too costly.
SOCIAL VALUE OR UTILITY OF ACTIVITY
The absence of a viable activity should be examined
in light of the social value of the activity involved. The
diligence requires varies according to the situation.
Example: A train blowing its horns while passing is
necessary even if animals nearby will be frightened;
or a medicine that has foreseeable side effect even
with the possibility that the consumers will not read
the label, the manufacturer is not negligent because
the use of the medicine involved.
Duty of exercising proper diligence is still incumbent
upon the actor even if the activity has high societal
value.
PERSONAL CIRCUMSTANCES OF THE PERSON
EXPOSED TO THE RISK
Character of person exposed to the risk should be
considered in determining the proper diligence.
RJDA TORTS AND DAMAGES
Children should be given a higher degree of diligence.
DILIGENCE OF A GOOD FATHER OF A FAMILY
✓ The standard of conduct used in the Philippines.
✓ A good father of a family is a reasonable man, man
of ordinary intelligence and prudence, or an
ordinary reasonable prudent man.
✓ The law considers what would be a reckless,
blameworthy, or negligent in the man of ordinary
intelligence and prudence
ATTRIBUTES OF A GOOD FATHER OF A FAMILY
✓ Knowledge and Experience of the Actor
✓ Children
✓ Physical Disability
✓ Experts and Professional
✓ Nature of the Activity
✓ Insanity
DEFENSES AVAILABLE IN QUASI-DELICT
✓ Due Diligence
✓ Force Majeure
✓ Contributory Negligence
✓ Concurrent Negligence
✓ Doctrine of Last Clear Chance
✓ Emergency Rule
✓ Doctrine of Assumption of Risk
✓ Damnum Absque Injuria
✓ Law
✓ Prescription
✓ Proscription against Double Recovery
✓ Act or Omission is not the Proximate Cause of the
Damage
DUE DILIGENCE
The diligence required by law, contract or depends on
the circumstances by persons, places, or things.
FORCE MAJEURE OR FORTUITOUS EVENTS
A person is not responsible for those which cannot be
foreseen, or if foreseen were inevitable.
It is complete defense if the cause is the fortuitous
event. However, it can be a partial defense and the
courts may mitigate the damages if the loss would
have resulted in any event.
Requisites:
❖ Cause of the unforeseen and unexpected
occurrence, or failure to comply with the
obligation is independent of human will;
❖ Impossible to foresee the event which constitutes
caso fortuito or it can be foreseen but it must be
impossible to avoid it.
❖ Occurrence must be such as to render it impossible
for the debtor to fulfill the obligation
❖ The obligor must be free from any participation in
the aggravation of the injury resulting to the
creditor.
4 of 17
2ND SEMESTER 2019-2020
Liability still holds if the person made an assumption
of risk.
CONTRIBUTORY NEGLIGENCE
The plaintiff was also negligent with the defendant to
constitute a defense. The proximate cause must still
be the negligence of the defendant.
CONCURRENT NEGLIGENCE
Both parties are equally negligent, the courts will
leave them as they are.
No recovery.
DOCTRINE OF LAST CLEAR CHANCE
A person’s own acts may have placed him in a
position or peril that resulted to an injury, the injured
may recover only when he exercised reasonable care
and prudence if the defendant through reasonable
care and prudence might have avoided injurious
consequences to the plaintiff.
Available as defense only through an action by the
driver or owner of one vehicle against the driver or
owner of another vehicle.
The person who can invoke this defense is the
Plaintiff.
Requisites:
❖ The plaintiff was in a position of danger by his own
negligence
❖ Defendant knew of such position of the plaintiff
❖ Defendant had the least clear chance to avoid the
accident by exercise of ordinary care but failed to
exercise such last clear chance
❖ Accident occurred as proximate cause of failure
JOSE CO Case
A driver of car who avoided the pedestrian by
swerving to the other lane that led to the truck
colliding with him could not have reasonably avoided
the approaching truck who did not slow down when
he saw the car swerved. The truck had the last clear
chance to avoid colliding with the car.
EMERGENCY RULE
Factors to consider:
❖ Gravity of the Harm
❖ Alternative courses of action
❖ Social Value and Utility
❖ Person exposed to the risk
It is applicable only to situations that are sudden and
unexpected such as to deprive the actor of all
opportunity for deliberation.
PROSCRIPTION AGAINST DOUBLE RECOVERY
Responsibility for the negligence under quasi-delict is
separate from the civil action arising from the delict.
RJDA TORTS AND DAMAGES
However, recovery of damages can only be once for
the same act or omission of the defendant.
SPECIAL TORTS
Art. 19. Every person must, in the exercise of his rights
and in the performance of his duties, act with justice,
give everyone his due, and observe honesty and good
faith.
Art. 20. Every person who, contrary to law, willfully or
negligently causes damage to another, shall indemnify
the latter for the same.
Art. 21. Any person who willfully causes loss or injury to
another in a manner that is contrary to morals, good
customs or public policy shall compensate the latter for
the damage.
ABUSE OF RIGHTS (ART. 19)
Elements:
✓ There is a legal right or duty
✓ Such was exercised in bad faith
✓ It is for the sole intent of prejudicing or injuring
another
There can only be an action if the damage, regardless
of material or not, was suffered by the plaintiff.
Tort attaches even when there is good faith on the
part of the defendant for Articles 19-21.
GENERAL SANCTION (ART. 20)
This is applied to the other provisions of law that does
not expressly provide for their own sanction.
Elements:
✓ There is an act or omission
✓ It was made in the exercise of his legal right or duty
✓ The act or omission was made willfully or
negligently
CONTRA BONUS MORES (ART. 21)
Elements:
✓ There is an act which is legal
✓ But it is contrary to morals, good custom, public
order, or public policy
✓ It is done with intent to injure
Damages are recoverable even if no positive law has
been involved.
Examples:
Breach of a promise to marry
Seduction without breach of promise to marry
Sexual Assault
Desertion by a spouse
Trespass and Deprivation of Property
Breach of promise to marry
Generally, it is not actionable.
5 of 17
2ND SEMESTER 2019-2020
Exception: A person can recover for damages if there
is another act independent of the breach or a promise
to marry, giving rise to liability as when:
❖ There was financial damage
❖ Social humiliation
❖ Moral seduction
❖ Breach was done in a manner that is contrary to
morals
Damages may be filed for breach of promise to marry
if preparations have already been made.
— As stated, mere breach of promise to marry is not
an actionable wrong. But to formally set a wedding and
go through all the above-described preparation and
publicity, only to walk out of it when the matrimony is
about to be solemnized, is quite different. This is
palpably and unjustifiably contrary to good customs
for which defendant must be held answerable in
damages in accordance with Article 21 aforesaid.
(Wassmer v. Velez, 12 SCRA 648)
SEDUCTION WITHOUT BREACH OF PROMISE TO
MARRY
Seduction itself is an act contrary to morals.
Liability attaches if defendant employed deceit,
enticement, superior power, or abuse of confidence
in successfully having sexual intercourse with
another even if he did not promise marriage to the
offended party.
The law does not confine itself to a man and woman,
for this a person is liable if the offended party is of the
same sex.
DESERTION OF SPOUSE
The spouses have the legal obligation to live together
unless there is a valid cause for their separation as
when the occupation or profession of the other
requires him/her to be in a distant place.
PERSONS LIABLE FOR QUASI-DELICT
✓ Tortfeasor
✓ Persons Vicariously Liable
TORTFEASOR
A person who committed an act or omission that
caused damage to another, there being no fault or
negligence is obliged to pay for the damages done.
Defendants in tort cases can either be natural or
artificial beings.
RJDA TORTS AND DAMAGES
Anesthesiologist was convicted for negligence for the
death of a child who died a day after operation for
appendicitis. The physician did not make an intensive
preparation such as administration of antibiotics, gave
and overdose of anesthesia and arbritary
administration of Nubian (pain killer) without
examination of patient’s weight which caused a heart
attact. (Dr. Carillo v. People, 229 SCRA 386)
Joint Tortfeasors
Two or more persons who act together in committing
a wrong, or contribute to its commission, or assist or
participate therein actively, and with common intent
so that injury results to a third person from the joint
wrongful act of the wrongdoers.
The liability of joint tortfeasors is solidary.
PERSONS VICARIOUSLY LIABLE
Obligation is demandable not only for one’s own act
or omission but also for those persons for whom one
is responsible.
Vicarious Liability is the person who himself is not
guilty of negligence but is made liable for the conduct
of another.
Doctrine of respondeat superior
A person is made liable not only because of the
negligent or wrongful act of the person for whom
they are responsible but also because of their own
negligence as when he has an obligation to exercise
supervision in the selection of employees or because
he has parental authority over the child.
This applies to liability of employers under Article 103
RPC; and liability of partnership for the tort
committed.
PARENTS AND GUARDIANS
The civil liability which the law impose upon the father,
and, in case of his death or incapacity, the mother, for
any damages that may be caused by the minor children
who live with them, is obvious. This is necessary
consequence of the parental authority they exercise
over them which imposes upon the parents the "duty
of supporting them, keeping them in their company,
educating them and instructing them in proportion to
their means", while, on the other hand, gives them the
"right to correct and punish them in moderation.”
(Exconde v. Capuno)
Parents are responsible for the damage caused by
their minor children. Father and mother are jointly
exercising parental authority.
Parents may be relieved of liability for their child’s
quasi-delict if they can prove that they exercised the
6 of 17
2ND SEMESTER 2019-2020
due diligence of a father in the exercise of their
parental authority
— When the law simply refers to "all the diligence of a
good father of the family to prevent damage," it
implies a consideration of the attendant circumstances
in every individual case, to determine whether or not
by the exercise of such diligence the damage could
have been prevented.
In the present case there is nothing from which it may
be inferred that the defendant could have prevented
the damage by the observance of due care, or that he
was in any way remiss in the exercise of his parental
authority in failing to foresee such damage, or the act
which caused it. On the contrary, his child was at
school, where it was his duty to send her and where she
was, as he had the right to expect her to be, under the
care and supervision of the teacher. And as far as the
act which caused the injury was concerned, it was an
innocent prank not unusual among children at play and
which no parent, however careful, would have any
special reason to anticipate much less guard against.
Nor did it reveal any mischievous propensity, or indeed
any trait in the child's character which would reflect
unfavorably on her upbringing and for which the blame
could be attributed to her parents. (Cudra v. Monfort)
If there is a disagreement: The father’s decision shall
prevail. If the father is incapacitated or dead, the
mother shall be responsible for the damage.
If the child is an illegitimate child:
✓ Recognized by the father and under his custody, or
simply under his custody- the liability is borne by the
father
✓ Not recognized and not under the custody of his
father, or if recognized but under the custody of the
mother- the liability is borne by the mother.
✓ Common-law spouses- the father shall bear the
liability.
There can be no simultaneous liability of parents.
The parents who may be held liable are those who had
custody of or were exercising parental authority over
the child at the time of the quasi-delict
— the court did not not consider that retroactive
effect may be given to the decree of adoption so as to
impose a liability upon the adopting parents accruing
at a time when adopting parents had no actual or
physically custody over the adopted child. In the
instant case, the trial custody period either had not yet
begun or had already been completed at the time of
the air rifle shooting; in any case, actual custody of
Adelberto was then with his natural parents, not the
RJDA TORTS AND DAMAGES 2ND SEMESTER 2019-2020

adopting parents. Accordingly, the Court held that

respondent Bundoc spouses, Adelberto's natural
parents, were indispensable parties to the suit for
damages brought by petitioners. (Tamargo v. CA)
Vicarious liability of other persons exercising
parental authority:
In the default of the parents or the judicially
appointed guardian, parental authority shall be
exercised by the following persons in the order
indicated:
1. Surviving grandparents
2. Oldest sibling, over 21 years of age unless
unfit or unqualified; or
3. The child’s actual custodian, over 21 years of
age, unless unfit or unqualified
Held: Phil Shell is not liable because Feliciano was not
its employee. It was shown that Phil Shell has no
control over Feliciano who do business of his own, used
his own tools and worked on his own time charging a
fixed lump sum for every piece of work. Feliciano was
an independent contractor and not an employee and
thus he alone is liable.
Case: Cuison vs Norton & Harisson Co, 55 Phil 18
Facts: Ora was employed by defendant company
charged in directing and controlling transport business
of the Co. On the day of the accident, one of the
company’s truck was leaded with logs which were not
properly tied. The ties were loosened during the trip.
They stopped to rearrange the ties but before they
could do so a child passing beside the truck was hit by
a log falling from the truck.

EMPLOYERS Held: Ora beingan employee of the company, the latter

They are liable for the damages caused by their is responsible for the negligence in the loading of logs
employees and household helpers acting within the which caused the death of the boy.
scope of their assigned tasks, even though the
former are not engaged in any business or industry.
Liability of other employers:
The existence of employer-employee relationship 1. Engagement in business or industry;
must be established by the plaintiff in a satisfactory. 2. The nature of the liability is primary and solidary
with the employee although the employer can
recover from the employee whatever is paid.
3. The law presumes that the employer is liable
Case: Phil Rabbit Bus Lines Inc vs Phil Am Forwarder, when there is injury or damage caused by the
Mar 25, 1975 employee.
4. Employer can overcome presumption by showing
that he was negligent in the selection of the
Facts: An action for damages was brought against Phil employee or in his supervision over him or both.
Am Forwarded and its Manager Balingit for negligent 5. The employee is not totally exempt from
act of their driver. Balingit moved to dismiss the action personal liability especially if there are persons
having direct supervision over them, or there is
against him for though he was manager, however, he proof of the existence of negligence on their
was just an employee of the company. part.
Liability of employers under the Civil Code and
Held: Balingit is not liable because he was just a mere RPC
employee though designated as “Manager”. Civil Code RPC
As to liability Direct and Subsidiary.
primary. The Liability only
The relationship of employer-employee or master- employer is arise after the
servant must first be established to exist before the solidarily liable, employee’s
employer/master will be held liable. thus he can be guilt
sued even
without suing
Case: Phil Shell Petroleum Co vs CA, 221 SCRA 389 the employee
As to available Exercise of a Diligence of a
Facts: Gas station proprietor was sued for selling defenses good father of good father is
a family not a defense
adulterated gas with water. He settled amicably the As to when Shall be liable Must be
suit and then Phil Shell for the negligence of Feliciano the employer even when not proven to be
who was hired in undertaking hydro pressure test in is liable proven that engaged in
the employer is the business
the underground storage tank which was cracked engaged in to hold him
causing water to seep into the tank. such business liable

7 of 17
RJDA TORTS AND DAMAGES
As to the Preponderance Proof beyond
quantum of of evidence reasonable
evidence doubt of
evidence
OWNER OF THE VEHICLE
The owner of the vehicle shall be liable for the
damage or injury caused by the vehicle.
The owner can be liable either:
✓ Solidarily- if the owner is inside during the incident;
and
✓ Subsidiary- if the owner is not inside during the time
of incident.
Case: Chapman vs Underwood, 27 Phil 374
Facts: Underwood riding in his car and his driver
suddenly turned to the wrong side of the street and hit
the plaintiff. Driver was negligent. Was the owner
liable too?
Held: Where the owner had reasonable opportunity to
observe his driver and to direct the latter to cease there
from, becomes himself responsible for such acts. On
the other hand, if the driver, by sudden act of
negligence and without opportunity to prevent the
acts or its continuance, the owner is not responsible.
Caedo vs Tu Khe Thai, 26 SCRA 419
Facts: Yu was riding in his Cadillac driven by Bernardo
saw a carratela about 8 meters away. Instead of
slowing down veered to the left to overtake and in so
doing the car hit the carratella’s left wheel and skidded
obliquely hitting the on coming car of Caedo who
despite slackened speed to avoid the collision was hit
resulting to the injuries of Caedo and his passengers.
Yu’s driver was negligent. Was Yu liable?
Held: The basis of the master/employer’s liability in
civil law is not respondent superior but rather the
relationship of Pater Familias. The theory is that
ultimately the negligence of the servant, if known to
the master and susceptible of timely correction,
reflects the master’s negligence if he fails to correct it
in order to prevent the injury or damage (J. Makalintal)
The owner of the car Yu was not liable because he did
not see the carretela at a distance, however, he could
not anticipated his driver’s sudden decision to pass the
carretela. The time element was such that there was
not reasonable opportunity for Yu to assess the danger
involved and warn the driver accordingly.
Former owner of Motor Vehicle are liable for the
tortuous acts of the new owner
Case: Equitable Leasing Corp vs Suyom, Sept 5, 2002
8 of 17
2ND SEMESTER 2019-2020
Facts: “Equitable” sold to Lim a Fuso tractor. After the
sale’s price was fully paid, a deed of sale executed by
“Equitable” in favor of Lim who had not registered the
sale with the LTO. While the tractor was driven by Lim’s
employee, it rammed into a house causing death and
injuries and damages.
Held: This court (SC) has consistently held that
regardless of the sales made of motor vehicle, the
registered owner is the lawful operator insofar as the
public and third persons are concerned. Consequently
it is directly and primary liable for the consequences of
its operation in contemplation of the law. The owner of
record is the employer of the driver while the actual
owner is considered as merely its agent.
Since “Equitable” remained the registered owner, it
could not escape primary liability.
OTHER PERSONS VICARIOUSLY LIABLE
✓ Owners and managers of establishments
✓ State
✓ School Administrator, Teachers, and other
Academic Institutions
SCHOOL, ADMINISTRATOR, TEACHER
School is covered by Article 2180 of the Civil Code.
Liability of the school- whether academic or non-
academic is same- PREVAILING DOCTRINE
The liability of the school is not limited to pupils,
students, or apprentices who are minors.
Note: The teacher’s control is not plenary as when
the student is a minor, but the circumstance can only
affect the degree of the responsibility but cannot
negate the existence thereof.
Minor students, pupils, or apprentices
Basis: Special Parent Authority and Responsibility
assumed over the minor for whose acts or omissions
those given such authority and responsibility are
principally and solidarily liable for damages.
- In this case, the parents shall only be subsidiarily
liable.
Age of Student: Regardless of whether the student
has reached the age of majority, or is still a minor, so
long as they are under the school’s custody, liability
of the teacher attaches (Amadora v. CA, GR No. L-
47745).
Schools which the law attaches such liability
Non-academic schools: Schools of art and trade, or
those that provides vocational or technical training in
nature.
The liability of the school head shall be absolute in
these cases.
Head of School is not the Board of Directors, but the
principal or the Director.
RJDA TORTS AND DAMAGES
The liability of teachers or directors applies only to an
institution of arts and trades and not to any academic
educational institution.
It is true that under the law above quoted, "teachers or
directors of arts and trades are liable for any damages
caused by their pupils or apprentices while they are
under their custody", but this provision only applies to
an institution of arts and trades and not to any
academic educational institution. Here Dante capuno
was then a student of the Balintawak Elementary
School and as part of his extra-curricular activity, he
attended the parade in honor of Dr. Jose Rizal upon
instruction of the city school's supervisor. And it was in
connection with that parade that Dante boarded a jeep
with some companions and while driving it, the
accident occurred. In the circumstances, it is clear that
neither the head of that school, nor the city school's
supervisor, could be held liable for the negligent act of
Dante because he was not then a student of an
institute of arts and trades as provided by law.
(Exconde v. Capuno)
Academic schools: Teacher shall be held liable, for
negligence. The head of the school may use the
defense of exercising due diligence in the supervision
and in selection of the teacher.
Note: No substantial distinction between the schools
mentioned above.
The heads of establishments do not qualify as
teachers. It is the updated version of the term
‘preceptores y artesanos’ used in the Italian and
French Civil Codes.
Same vigilance is expected whatever nature of the
school.
Obligation of exercising due diligence on the part of
the school attaches:
1. During the semester when the student
enrolled
“Under the custody of the teachers” referred to by law
contemplates a situation where the pupil lives and
boards with the teacher, such that the control,
direction and influence on the pupil supersedes those
of the parents.
It would be seem that the clause "so long as they
remain in their custody," contemplates a situation
where the pupil lives and boards with the teacher, such
that the control, direction and influence on the pupil
supersedes those of the parents. In these
circumstances the control or influence over the
conduct and actions of the pupil would pass from the
father and mother to the teacher; and so would the
responsibility for the torts of the pupil.
9 of 17
2ND SEMESTER 2019-2020
Such a situation does not appear in the case at bar; the
pupils appear to go to school during school hours and
go back to their homes with their parents after school
is over. The situation contemplated in the last
paragraph of Article 2180 does not apply, nor does
paragraph 2 of said article, which makes father or
mother responsible for the damages caused by their
minor
The children.
claim of petitioner that responsibility should pass
to the school must, therefore, be held to be without
merit. (Mercado v. CA)
2. Under the custody of the school.
Case: A school parade was held. The 15 year old
student drove the jeep in the parade that held their
float. The jeep encountered an accident after the
parade, while the child was going home. The child
was driving the jeep. The parents were the held liable.
Is the court correct?
Yes. The accident occurred after the school activity,
when the child was going home. The head of schools
cannot be held liable for their liability is only absolute
only for non-academic schools. However, the
parental authority is being exercised by the parents
when a child is going home from school.
Case: During recess, X cut his classmate using a razor.
The parents of Y, the injured classmate of X, filed a
case against X’s parents and not the school. X’s
parents contend that they should not be liable for
they have no custody over the child during the
incident. Is the parents correct?
No. Liability of the school can only be held when the
school has custody over the child was vested over the
school. Custody is such that the management,
control, and influence over the child is given to the
school. In this case, the school is an academic
institution. The teacher has no supervision over the
student at such time, and the school head cannot be
liable. The parents should be liable for they have
custody over the child.
Case: Submitting a requirement for graduation of a
student places him or her in the custody of the
school. The teacher-in-charge shall have vicarious
liability over the students. Prior to the killing of the
student by X, the gun was confiscated by the Dean.
The gun had no identification, thus they cannot
ascertain to whom it was. When X claimed the gun,
the Dean cannot be faulted for the negligence.
Influence of the teacher over the student to be held
liable, thus, no liability when the teacher has no
influence over the student.
Custody of the school will not be during at the start
of the semester until the end, but it shall be
determined by the presence of control or influence of
the student. Even in the absence of the teacher, he or
she can still be held liable for the crime committed by
the student within his or her custody.
Note: If the gun is owned by the parents of the child,
the liability shall be with the parent.
RJDA TORTS AND DAMAGES 2ND SEMESTER 2019-2020

As to those School, its Techers, head

The custody of teachers over their students exists even expressly administrators, of
liable teachers establishment
if the school term has already ended as long as the engaged in in arts and
student goes to school with a legitimate purpose; It is child care trades
not necessary that the teachers are present as long as As to the School, its No express
liability administrators, solidary nor
they have control and influence over the students and teachers is subsidiary
— It was immaterial if he was in the school auditorium solidary while liability was
to finish his physics experiment or merely to submit his parents are stated
subsidiarily
physics report for what is important is that he was liable
there for a legitimate purpose. As previously observed, As to the age Must be a Not
even the mere savoring of the company of his friends of the student minor necessarily a
minor, as even
in the premises of the school is a legitimate purpose those who
that would have also brought him in the custody of the reached age of
school authorities. majority are
covered as
— The director, the high school principal and the dean long as they
of boys cannot be held liable because none of them was are under the
the teacher-in-charge as previously defined. Each of custody of the
school
them was exercising only a general authority over the
student body and not the direct control and influence
exerted by the teacher placed in charge of particular LIABILITY OF THE STATE FOR ACTS OF SPECIAL
classes or sections and thus immediately involved in its
AGENTS
discipline. State can be sued either expressly or impliedly. Note
— The Colegio de San Jose-Recoletos cannot be held that the State can be liable only if it acts through a
directly liable under the article because only the special agent, but not when the damage has been
caused by the official upon whom the task done
teacher or the head of the school of arts and trades is properly pertains.
made responsible for the damage caused by the
student or apprentice. Neither can it be held to answer State is defined as the Republic of the Philippines
under the Civil Code. However, it is also defined as
for the tort committed by any of the other private including all the Corporate governmental entities
respondents for none of them has been found to have under the Administrative Code.
been charged with the custody of the offending
student or has been remiss in the discharge of his Responsibility of the state
duties in connection with such custody. (Amadora v. Limited to that which it contracts through a special
agent.
CA)
Special Agent
One who is duly empowered by a definite order or
Special Parental Authority under the Family commission to perform some act or commission to
Code perform some act or charged with some definite
purpose which gives rise to the claims and not where
 Article 218 and 219 the claim is based on acts or omissions imputable to
o Vested special parental authority a public official charged with some administrative or
over a minor child while under its technical office who can be held to the proper
supervision, instruction, or custody. responsibility in the manner laid down by the law of
o The following shall be principally civil responsibility.
and solidarily liable:
 The school
 its administrators and State can be sued either:
 teachers ✓ Expressly; or
o Subsidiarily liable: ✓ Impliedly
 Parents
 Judicial guardians
exercising parental Expressly sued when
authority or The law itself provides for the suability of the State.
 Persons exercising Examples of laws that provide for the suability of the
parental authority over the State:
minor 1. PD No. 1445 or the Auditing Code
Article 218 of Article 2180 of 2. Administrative Code of 1987
the Family the Civil Code 3. Civil Code provisions, specifically Article 2180
Code 4. Government agencies in its charter

10 of 17
RJDA TORTS AND DAMAGES
Impliedly when:
1. The State enters in a contract in its proprietary
functions
2. Filing of a claim against a person by the State
itself.
Note: the payment for damages cannot be granted in
favor of the private person against the State because
only the main claim, when there is a claim made
within the year to the COA, can be given.
Two kinds of liability
✓ Public Liability
✓ Business Liability
Public Liability
Those that are within the functions of the
government that it is regularly done by the State.
These are mandatory functions that can only be
performed by the government.
Republic vs Sandoval, 20 SCRA 124, 1993
Facts: Jan 22, 1987 known as Black Saturday – the
Mendiola Massacre of Rallyist who were shot as they
march toward Malacañang. Heirs of the dead rallyist
sued the Republic and Military Officers and soldiers.
Judge Sandoval dismiss their suit invoking State’s
immunity from suit.
Held: Instances when the suit against the state
a. when the Republic is sued by name
b. when the suit is against an unincorporated govt
agency
c. when the suit is against a govt officer but the
ultimate liability will fall on the state and not on the
officer
d. when the govt perpetrated injustice on the citizen
(De los Santos vs IAC, 223 SCRA 11)
In this case, the state is not liable for the civil liability
arising from criminal acts of the military for violating
BP Blg 880 which prohibits unnecessary firing in
dispensing public assembly. The doctrine of immunity
from suit will not be applied to the military officers
who have acted beyond the scope of their authority
because in so doing they are deemed to ceased to be a
public officers but a private person liable like any other
private persons for doing wrongful acts.
De los Santos vs IAC, 223 SCRA 11, ‘93
11 of 17
2ND SEMESTER 2019-2020
Facts: Min of Public works while carrying on its project
of constructing roads and creeks took over the portion
of privately owned land without or against the consent
of the owner who sued. Immunity from suit was
invoked.
Held: when a govt thru its agency takes away private
property without going to legal process of
expropriation and paying just compensation, a suit
may be properly maintained against the govt. The civil
action may be based under Art 32 NCC and the
constitutional provisions on rights against privation of
property without due process of law and without just
compensation.
The doctrine of immunity from suit cannot serve as an
instrument for the perpetration of injustice on its
citizens. (J. Romero)
Business Liability
The State can be liable like an ordinary employer,
when State performs non governmental function.
GAA vs CA, 167 SCRA 28, ‘88
Facts: GAA charges fees for the use of the Airport’s
terrace or viewing deck where one gets a better view
of arriving and departing passengers at the airport. The
deck had an elevated portion (4 inches) which caused a
viewer to fall breaking his thigh bone. He sued CAA for
hospital expenses. CAA raised the defense of being a
govt agency subject of immunity from suit.
Held: While CAA is a govt agency however it is
performing a proprietary functions – business and
under its charter it is empowered to sue and be sued.
Thus it cannot avail the immunity from suit accorded
to govt agencies performing strictly governmental
function. (Malong vs PNR, 138 SCRA 63 which ruled that
PNR is not immune from suit as it does not exercise
sovereignty but purely proprietary – business function)
Liability for unauthorized or illegal acts of the
Special Agents
Two Kinds of Special Agents:
1. Public officials with a particular assigned
tasks but is specially commissioned to do
such task foreign to his usual assigned
governmental function
Republic vs Palacio, 23 SCRA 899
RJDA TORTS AND DAMAGES
Facts: The Irrigation Service Unit, an office/agency
under the Dept of Public Works and Communication
was sued for tort and the Sheriff of Manila garnished
the deposit of the ISU in the PNB, Manila.
Held: The ISU being an office in the govt and its fund is
a public fund. It is being shown that the ISU was guilty
of tort, however the sate not its fund is not liable
because the ISU was not a special agent. Under Art 2180
the state is liable only for tort caused by its special
agent.
2. Private Person who is not a public official
commissioned to perform nongovernmental
function.
Rosete vs The Auditor General, 81 Phil 453
Facts: A fire broke out in the Emergency Control
Administration (a govt office) due to the negligence of
its employee in igniting recklessly his cigarette lighter
near a drum of gasoline in the office’s warehouse
resulting to destruction of buildings adjoining the
warehouse. Victims sued the officers of the Emergency
Control Admin.
Held: As ECA or its officers were shown to have acted
not as special agent of the govt in storing gasoline in
the warehouse, the Govt is not responsible for the
damages caused thru such negligence.
The State authorizes only legal acts by its officers.
The unauthorized acts of government officials or
officers are not acts of the State, and the proper
action should be an action against the officials or
officers by one whose rights have been invaded or
violated by such acts.
Facts: Hugo Garcia is a regular employee of National
Irrigation Administration (NIA) a govt agency created
by its charter RA 3601 amended by PD 552 for the
purpose of undertaking integrated irrigation project.
Garcia driving the agency official pick-up bumped a
bicycle ridden by Fontanilla resulting to his death. The
victim’s parent filed a civil action against NIA and its
driver Garcia who was found guilty of driving
recklessly. NIA was ordered to pay, NIA appealed
raising the issue that as govt agency performing govt
function is not liable as being a part of the state, cannot
be sued.
12 of 17
2ND SEMESTER 2019-2020
Held: The state or govt agency performing
governmental function may be held liable for tort
committed by its employees when it acts thru a special
agent. While NIA is a govt agency performing
governmental function, however it is suable because
its charter provides that it may be sue or be sued, thus
consent of the state for NIA to be sued has already
given, so that the rule on immunity from suit normally
extended to govt agencies performing governmental
functions is no longer available to NIA. By waiving that
immunity from suit in its charter, NIA open itself to
suits.
Thus NIA was held responsible for the negligent act of
its employee Garcia who is not a special agent. (J.
Padilla separate opinion in Fontanilla vs Maliaman
Resolution in 1991, 194 SCRA 499)
NIA vs IAC, 214 SCRA 35, ‘92
Held: Damages caused by the officials of NIA for its
negligence in the construction of the canal which
caused damages to nearby land, NIA is liable under Art
2176 NCC as NIA’s official are not special agent in
performing their official assigned duties and functions.
LGU are liable for damages for the death or injuries
suffered by any person by reason of defective
conditions of roads, streets, bridges, public building
and other public works under their control or
supervision. (Art 2189)
LGU’s and their official are not exempt from liability for
death or injury to persons or damage to property. (Sec
24, RA 7160 LGC of 1991)
Liability of municipal corporations in certain
cases
Municipal Corporations exercise both governmental
and corporate powers.
No liability: For exercising governmental functions
Liable: For acts arising from the wrongful exercise of
business or corporate powers to private persons in
the same manner as a private corporation or
individual (Article 2189 of the Civil Code)
 Corporate functions of the LGUs where
liability attaches is when the death, or
injuries suffered by any person is by reason
of defective conditions of the:
o Roads
o Streets
o Bridges
o Public buildings and
RJDA TORTS AND DAMAGES
o Other public works
These are corporate functions that are under the
supervision of the municipal corporations, and not
governmental.
Palafox vs Ilocos Norte Prov, 102 Phil 1186
Facts: Province’s truck was on its way to the river for
gravel and sands to be used in the construction and
repair of its road (a governmental function) runs over
a pedestrian resulting to the latter’s death.
Held: The province was not liable because its employee
driver at the time of the accident was performing his
regular duties and is not a special agent.
Municipality of San Fernando, La Union vas Firme, 195
SCRA 692, ‘91
Facts: Municipal’s dump truck on way to the Naguilian
River to get gravel and sands for the repair of roads (a
governmental function) collided with a passenger jeep
resulting the death of passenger of the latter vehicle.
Civil action was filed against the Municipality.
Held: Municipalities being agencies of the State, when
performing governmental functions enjoy sovereignty
and thus immune from suit unless it is shown that they
are performing proprietary function.
However, they may be held liable if it can be shown
acting thru a special agent. The Municipality’s driver is
not a special agent and so the Municipal is not liable,
only the driver.
Palma vs Graciano, 99 Phil 92
Facts: A governor and a Mayor filed a criminal charge
which was dismissed for being groundless. They were
sued
Held: The prosecution of a crime is a governmental
function, not a corporation action. In the discharged
thereof, the Province or City or Municipality is not liable
for tortuous acts of its officers. Only the public officers
acting tortuously (beyond the scope of their authority)
are personally liable because the mantle of immunity
from suit accorded to their office is not available for
their tortuous acts.
13 of 17
2ND SEMESTER 2019-2020
LIABILITY OF PROPRIETORS OF BUILDINGS
The proprietor of a building or structure is
responsible for the damages resulting from its total
or partial collapse, if it should be due to the lack of
necessary repairs.
Their responsibility also includes those that were
caused by:
 Emanations from tubes, canals, sewers; or
 Deposits of infectious matter
Constructed without precautions suitable for the
place.
The liability applies to collapse or ruin, and not simply
minor defects. The architect or engineer, if he had
supervised the construction, shall be solidarily liable
with the contractor.
The collapse of the building must be witin 15 years
from the completion of the structure, and the
collapse must be by reason of a defect on the plans
and specification, or defects on the ground. Even
when fully paid, an action is still possible.
When the collapse was during an earthquake:
 General Rule: no one can be held liable in
view of fortuitous event if the proximate
cause of the collapse is an earthquake.
 Exception: a clear liability exists if the
proximate cause was due to the defective
design or construction of the building, or the
inferior or unsafe material.
SPECIAL RULES WITH RESPECT TO
INDIVIDUALS PERTAINING TO QUASI-DELICT
✓ Children
✓ Physical Disability
✓ Experts and Professionals
✓ Nature of activity
✓ Intoxication
✓ Insanity
✓ Women
CHILDREN
The actions of a child should not be judged according
to the standard of an adult.
The child shall be liable if he acted with discernment
or when he is mature enough to understand and
appreciate the nature of his actions and
consequences.
When is a child considered to have discernment?
There is no arbitrary age at which a minor can be said
to have the necessary capacity to understand and
appreciate the nature and consequences of his acts.
However, the absence of negligence of a child will not
excuse the parents from liability.
From the provisions of the RPC:
✓ 9 years old or below is conclusively presumed to
be incapable of negligence.
RJDA TORTS AND DAMAGES 2ND SEMESTER 2019-2020

A child can be liable, subsidiarily, with his property, if
it can be found that the parents has negligence on
their part, provided with consent.
✓ 9 years but below 15, there is a disputable
presumption of absence of negligence.
Note: Absence of negligence does not necessarily
mean that there is no liability.
PHYSICAL DISABILITY OR MERE WEAKNESS
It will not be an excuse for the negligence of said
person.
However, if it amounts to a real disability, the
standard of conduct is that of a reasonable person
under like disability or it can be used as defense.
EXPERTS AND PROFESSIONALS
They should exhibit the care and skill of one who is
ordinarily skilled in the particular field, hence they
must exercise more diligence than that required
when pertaining to their skills.
Educational attainment is not the basis.
Applicability: professionals who have undergone
formal education
Liable for negligence when: failure to exhibit the care
and skill of one ordinarily skilled in the particular work
which he attempts to do.
Others are of opinion that the standard must be
uniform.
OTHER FACTORS THAT MUST BE CONSIDERED
IN DETERMINING NEGLIGENCE: VIOLATION OF
RULES AND STATUTES
STATUTES
Generally, a violation of statutory duty is negligence
per se.
The standard of care that shall prevail is not due
diligence, but what the Legislature has spoken, or
what is provided in the law.
Exceptions:
1. Unusual conditions occur and strict observance
may defeat the purpose of the rule and may lead
to adverse results;
2. The statute expressly provides that violation of a
statutory duty merely establishes a presumption.
ADMINISTRATIVE RULE
Violation of rule promulgated by administrative
agencies is not negligence per se but may be
evidence of negligence.

NATURE OF ACTIVITY PRACTICE AND CUSTOM

There are activities which by nature impose duties to
exercise higher degree of diligence.
Example: Banks, common carriers
INTOXICATION
Generally, mere intoxication is not negligence, nor
does the mere fact of intoxication establish want of
ordinary care. But it can be a factor in considering
negligence.
Exception: Article 2185 of the CC, it is presumed that
a person driving a motor vehicle has been negligent if
at the time of the mishap, he was violating any traffic
regulation.
Violation of rules imposed by private individuals is
merely a possible evidence of negligence.
DAMAGES
 The sum of money which the law awards or
imposes as a pecuniary compensation, a
recompense or satisfaction for an injury
done or wrong sustained as a consequence
either of a breach of a contractual
obligations or a tortious act.
 It is personal in nature
DAMAGES IS DIFFERENT FROM INJURY
Injury- an illegal invasion of a legal right.

INSANITY Damages Injury

The insanity can be an excuse for criminal liability, but As to its Loss, hurt, or Illegal invasion
it cannot be used for quasi-delict. concept harm which of a legal right
results from
Bases for holding an insane person liable for his tort: the injury
1. Where one or two innocent persons must suffer As to its The subject of The subject is
loss, it should be borne by the one who subject damages is the the legal
occasioned it; compensation wrong to be
2. induce those interested in the estate of the or the redressed
insane person to restrain and control him; and measure of
3. The fear that an insanity would lead to false the recovery
claims of insanity and avoid liability
Note: There may be damage without injury (damnum
absque injuria), and an injury without damages.
WOMEN
There is a different standard of care that must be
considered in determining the question of APPLICABILITY
contributory negligence. There is a different standard To all obligations arising from:
of care required for women under the circumstances 1. Law
indicated. 2. Contracts
3. Quasi-contract
4. Delicts; and

14 of 17
RJDA TORTS AND DAMAGES
5. Quasi-delict
PECUNIARY IN NATURE
Damages can only be paid with money, and not its
equivalent in property.
KINDS OF DAMAGES
1. Moral
2. Exemplary
3. Nominal
4. Temperate
5. Actual
6. Liquidated
MORAL DAMAGES
It includes physical suffering, mental anguish, fright,
serious anxiety, besmirched reputation, wounded
feelings, moral shock, social humiliation, and similar
injury.
It is awarded to enable the injured party to obtain
means, diversions, or amusement that will serve to
alleviate the moral suffering he has undergone by
reason of the defendant’s culpable action.
The act or omission must be done in bad faith in order
for the plaintiff to recover.
Moral Damages are not punitive in nature, but are
designed to alleviate the physical suffering, mental
anguish, etc.
Conditions for recovery:
1. Factual basis of the award is the injury or
wrongdoing of the defendant
2. The injury is the proximate result of the
defendant’s wrongful act or omission
3. Casual connection or relation between the
actual injury and the wrongful act or
omission of the defendant.
When can moral damages be recovered:
a. Acts mentioned in Art 309 - disrespect to the dead
or wrongful interference with funeral
b. Arts and actions referred in Articles on human
relation - 21, 26, to 30, 32 to 35
c. Willful injury to property committed maliciously or
fraudulently (Art 2220, Francisco vs GSIS, Mar 30, '63)
d. Breaches of contracts where the defendant acted
with fraudulently or in bad faith. (Art 2220)
Breaches of contract of carriage resulting to
death or injury of passengers (Art 1764 in relation to
Art 2206 (3) Phil Rabbit bus lines inc vs Easguerra, 117
SCRA 741)
Case: Calalas vs CA, 332 SCRA 356, 2000
Facts:
Calalas' jeep was improperly parked with its rear
portion protruding from the board shoulder of the
road (violation of LTTC). Passenger Sunga who was
15 of 17
2ND SEMESTER 2019-2020
sited on wooden stool as extended seat alighted to
give way to another passenger alighting from the
inside and in the process he was bumped by an
overtaking truck owned by Salinas.
Sunga sued Calalas - breach of carriage
Calalas sued Salvas - Tort
Held:
While moral damages are not recoverable in actions for
breach of contract for it is not one of the items
enumerated in Art 2219, NCC, however, the exception is
in the cases of mishap resulting to the death or injury
of passenger unddder Art 1764 in relation to Art 2206
(3) NCC and in cases in which the carrier is guilty of
fraud or in bad faith.
In this case the ruling in Calamas vs Salvas is not binding
in the case of Sunga vs Calalas. Res Judicata does not
apply because Sunga is not a party to the tort case
where Salva was found at fault and liable to Calalas.
Thought both cases has the same issue of negligence,
however, each is distinct and separate from the other.
(Breach of contract and tort)
Defense of proximate cause is not available in breach
of contract of carriage: only in tort cases. Neither is the
defense of caso fortuitous where it is attended to by
negligence which in Calalas case were overloading and
parking improrely which are vioation of tle LTTC.
EXEMPLARY OR CORRECTIVE DAMAGES
It is intended to serve as a deterrent to serious
wrongdoings, and as a vindication of undue
sufferings and wanton invasion of rights of an injured
party or a punishment for those guilty of outrageous
conduct.
No proof of pecuniary loss is necessary.
Case: German Marine Agencies Inc. Vs NLRC, 350 SCRA
641
Facts:
The ship radio officer was taken ill while the ship was in
New Zealand, Despite notice thereof by the ship's
captain, the ship proceeded with the voyage and
reached the Phil in 10 days and yet the sick radio officer
was not immediately taken to hospital for medical
treatment.
Held:
RJDA TORTS AND DAMAGES
Ship owner is liable for moral damages for the physical
suffering and mental anguish caused to Radio Officer.
P50,000 in moral damages is proper.
As the fact of negligence of the ship's captain was not
only shown to have existed but it was deliberately
perpetrated by the arbitrary refusal to commit the
ailing radio officer to a hospital in New Zealand or at
the nearest port resulting to his permanent partial
disability, the award of exemplary damages for
P50,000 is adequate and reasonable.
In this case the awarding of the exemplary damages is
to serve a correction as well as an example for ship
owners to look after the welfare of their employees
first to that of their customers-cargo-owner.
Case: PCIB vs CA, 350 SCRA 446, '01 = Ford's case
Held:
Banks are liable for tortuous act of its officers an
employee within the course or scope of thei
employment.
In this case, both the drawee and collection banks
were negligent in failing to select and supervise their
employees resulting to the encashment of the check
to the syndicate instead of the rightful person.
NOMINAL DAMAGES
This is awarded in vindication or recognition of the
injured party’s right to a property that has been
violated or invaded.
No proof of pecuniary loss is necessary.
Case: Almeda vs Carino, Jan 13, 2003
Facts:
C sold a lot on installments to A. A last sold the same to
another, and despite of demands, A refused to pay the
unpaid balance of the purchase price owing to C.
Held:
The vendor C has the right to the unpaid balance to the
lot sold to A who violated such right when he refused
to pay. For this, C is entitled, aside from the payment of
the unpaid balance, to a nominal damages.
16 of 17
2ND SEMESTER 2019-2020
TEMPERATE DAMAGES
It may be recovered when the court finds that some
pecuniary loss has been suffered but the amount
cannot, from the nature of the case, be proved with
certainty.
No proof o pecuniary loss is necessary.
Case: Phil Telegraph and Telephone Corp vs CA, Sept. 3
2002.
Facts:
PT&T breached its contract in failing to remit money
order sent by plaintiff on time. However the latter
failed to prove actual damages and that PT&T was in
bad faith.
Held:
Either Temperate or nominal damages could be
awarded.
Case: Araneta vs Bank of America, 40 SCRA 144
Facts:
A issued checks in payment of jewels purchased. The
checks were dishonored despite of the sufficiency of
fund to cover the checks. The bank apologized for the
errors of its employee. Again, similar incidents
subsequently occurred. Thus a sued the bank.
Held:
While A may not be able to prove the profit he would
have net had the jewelry transaction been pushed thru,
his claim for temperate damages is justified.
ACTUAL OR COMPENSATORY DAMAGES
Awarding such is simply to make good or replace the
loss caused by the wrong.
It cannot be presumed, thus it must be proven with
competent proof.
Case: Batangas Laguna Tayabas Bus Co vs CA, 64 SCRA
427
Facts:
Bus collided with a car driven by Reyes resulting to
death of Reyes and injuries to his passengers Cardena.
Cardena and heirs of Elizondo sued the Bus operator
whose driver was found negligent.
RJDA TORTS AND DAMAGES 2ND SEMESTER 2019-2020

The defendant bus operator contended that it was

premature to proceed with the civil case pending final
resolution of the criminal case against their driver.

Held:
Employer's liability is made clear under Art 2180 and
under Art 2177 is entirely separate and distinct from the
civil liability arising from negligence under Revised
Penal Code. But the plaintiff cannot recover damages
twice for the same act or omission

Culpa aquiliana is an independent source of

obligation between two persons not formerly bound
by any juridical tie. (Manressa)

It is not required that the injured party should

not seek out a third person crimirnally liable whose
prosecution must be a condition precedent to the
enforcement of the civil right. (Rakes vs AGP Co, 7 Phil
359) The civil liability under quasi delict is contracted
without agreement or consent, thus culpa extra
contractual, on the principle that where harm, loss or
damage has been caused to a person thru fault or
negligent act the aggrieve party is entitled to be
indemnified. (Cangco vs MRR, 38 Phil 768)

LIQUIDATED DAMAGES
It is frequently agreed upon by the parties, either by
way of penalty or in order to avoid controversy on the
amount of damages.

GENERAL CLASSIFICATION OF DAMAGES

DAMAGES CAPABLE OF PECUNIARY ESTIMATION
It can be estimated established or proven in actual or
compensatory damages and loss of property or
earning capacity.

DAMAGES INCAPABLE OF PECUNIARY ESTIMATION

No proof was provided, and the assessment is left to
the discretion of the court.

17 of 17